Book Review: Rescuing the Gospel, by Erwin W. Lutzer

Rescuing the Gospel, by Erwin W. Lutzer

Lutzer, pastor of Moody Church in Chicago, has done the evangelical world a favor in two ways. First, he has written a concise history of the Reformation that is accessible to any reader. And second, he demonstrates that the causes of the original Reformation—the distortion of the gospel by the Catholic Church—persist unto this very day.

Lutzer begins with an honest assessment of the medieval church and its moral corruption. He traces the beginning of the glow of the Reformation through Wycliffe and Hus, and then devotes the bulk of the book to Luther. Luther’s path from terrified monk to fearless reformer is given in sufficient detail to allow the reader to come to know Luther the man.

Zwingli, the Anabaptists, and Calvin occupy most of the remainder of Lutzer’s attention. Lutzer is brief enough that the reader is not awash in details, and yet specific enough to flesh out the primary doctrinal and historical highpoints of each of his subjects.

Lutzer’s retelling of the Reformation is a valuable—if brief—introduction to a tumultuous time in history. But the real value of the book is in the final chapter, in which Lutzer documents that the issues initially separating Luther and Calvin from the Catholic church persist unto the present day. In an age in which philosophers and theologians seem to have an almost desperate craving to unify the Catholic and Protestant faiths, Lutzer demonstrates that there is only one side compromising its beliefs: the Catholics are holding firm to their historic pronouncements and distinctives while the Evangelicals are being tempted to move the doctrine of Justification to a back bench for the sake of “unity.”

If you are looking for a concise history of the Reformation with an equally concise and clear list of the issues that continue to separate Catholics and Evangelicals, this book is a good place to start. Four stars.

Pie in the Sky? No.

Skeptics have a field day with Christianity. As the skeptic sees it, Christians enjoy no special protection,  no blessings, no advantages, and are often, rather, persecuted for our strange beliefs. And when we claim—rightly—that our ultimate blessings come in the next life, we are met with rolling eyes and a sarcastic, “Sure they will.” The claims of the Christian are placed by the skeptic under the rubric, Pie in the Sky in the Sweet By and By. In a word, they consider us deluded.

But think about it from the perspective of the skeptic. Other than the historical record of the Bible itself, none of our truth claims can be verified in this life. We are saying that they will be fulfilled in a future that, as far as the skeptic is concerned, doesn’t even exist. That’s pretty handy for us. We can claim whatever we wish about the life to come, and no one is able to disprove us. For the skeptic, our faith is nothing more than the hollow shell of wishful thinking. The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18).

And yet the coming Kingdom of Christ is as certain and secure as tomorrow’s sunrise—more so, really. It is at this point the suffering saint is confronted with an unavoidable question: will you walk by faith or not? Will you walk in the “assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen” (Hebrews 11:1). It’s easy to do when your bank account is fat and your health is good. Not so easy when you’ve lost your job and you are burying a loved one.

The sons of Korah knew of this pattern of suffering now, blessings later. The psalmist writes in the midst of suffering in Psalm 42:3, My tears have been my food day and night, While they say to me all day long, “Where is your God?” But he knows where his ultimate hope is located: Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why have you become disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him For the help of His presence (verse 5).

Calvin writes of the pattern of delayed blessings in his Institutes, Book II, chapter X, paragraph 17 (emphasis mine):

Therefore, . . . , let us learn that the holy fathers under the Old Testament were not ignorant that in this world God seldom or never gives his servants the fulfillment of what is promised them, and therefore has directed their minds to his sanctuary, where the blessings not exhibited in the present shadowy life are treasured up for them. This sanctuary was the final judgment of God, which, as they could not at all discern it by the eye, they were contented to apprehend by faith. Inspired with this confidence, they doubted not that whatever might happen in the world, a time would at length arrive when the divine promises would be fulfilled. This is attested by such expressions as these: “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness” (Psalm xvii. 15).

Calvin goes on to list a number of similar verses that demonstrate the Old Testament saint knew he was waiting on death to experience God’s ultimate promises.

Therefore, suffering saint, let not the skeptic cow you with his snarky doubt. Let not the bleakness of the day nor the blackness of the night shake you. The promises are true and firm. He has graven you upon the palms of His hands (Isaiah 49:16); He will not forget you nor your suffering. How shall He, who gave His very Son for us, not freely give us all things (Romans 8:32). Wait patiently, suffering saint, today you walk by faith, but a tomorrow is coming when faith shall be sight.

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world. And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you. (1 Peter 5:8-10)

Fruit from my morning reading

Several interesting points from reading the Institutes this morning.

First, on the difference between the god of Islam and the True God.

Calvin makes the point that God is by necessity good, meaning that God cannot choose not to be good. To get the following quote, you must understand the way a philosopher or theologian uses the word, "necessary." Something that is necessary is something that must be due to the nature of things; it cannot not be. Here's Calvin: "The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; . . . " As I thought on this, I realized that it forms one of the most basic distinctions between the theology of Christianity, and that of Islam.

In a word, God does good things because God, in His essence, is good. God cannot fail to be good--it is His nature to be good, and God cannot contradict Himself.

However the god of Islam is arbitrary in his actions, sometimes doing good, sometimes evil. The god of Islam is only good when he decides to be so; his actions are not tied to his essence. This is one reason why Islam can justify any atrocity: Allah is not good, Allah is just what Allah determines to be at the moment.

The second interesting point comes from Calvin's discussion of free will and the bondage produced by sin. He quotes Augustine: "Man through liberty became a sinner [speaking of the Fall] but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity." Calvin then says, several sentences later, "Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil." [Calvin, Institutes, Book II:3:5]

This is why we need a Savior, and this is why He must take the initiative in salvation. We won't. We can't.

The trajectory of unbelief

Just finished reading Calvin on the credibility (trustworthiness) of Scripture (chapter 8 of book one of the Institutes). Calvin begins with this statement (emphasis mine): "In vain were the authority of Scripture fortified by argument, or supported by the consent of the Church, or confirmed by any other helps, if unaccompanied by an assurance higher and stronger than human judgment can give. Till this better foundation has been laid, the authority of Scripture remains in suspense."

What Calvin is saying here is something that outrages modern scholars: the truth of the Word of God is not something known by human investigation: it can only be known by regeneration (i.e., getting saved), followed by the illuminating activity of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Word can not be known by unaided rationality. This gets to the heart of the argument between theologically conservative scholars and theologically liberal scholars.

The points I am about to make have more to do with scholars, academics, and pastors than it does the average person in the pew. There are many true Christians who wrestle with the question of biblical Creationism, but they do so because they are unaware that theological belief resembles more a web than it does a rope. Most average Christians are unaware of the contradictions they create for themselves elsewhere in Scripture when they do not believe the literal account of creation. Scholars and pastors, on the other hand, are fully culpable. This essay applies to those of us who presume to teach the Bible to others.

Conservatives and liberals have terms that we sling at one another: fideism and rationalism. Liberals accuse conservatives of fideism: taking positions based on faith alone, flying in the face of evidence. Building our belief in young-earth creationism from our convictions regarding the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is to modern liberal critics a flight of anti-intellectual fancy in which faith silences, squelches, and suppresses modern science. It’s fideistic.

On the other hand, conservatives accuse liberal critics of rationalism: of refusing to believe anything that can not be supported by the consistent use of human rationality as informed by empirical evidence.

In one sense we are talking past one another. We conservative, Bible-believing Christians do not engage in irrationalism in order to practice our faith. We use rational thought to process what the Bible tells us. Systematic theology is the one of the fruits of a tightly reasoned faith. Biblical theology also is a rational (but not rationalistic) endeavor. The distinction between us is that when we conservatives bump up against something that seems to go against modern evidences, we anchor our belief on the Bible and best-practices of interpretation. We will gladly fly in the face of modern thought if we believe the biblical text compels us to do so, and we don’t give a flying fig about what the evangelical, academic, or cultural world thinks of us. We do this with confidence because of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit as to the truth of His Word.

Consequently whether one speaks of the paradoxes and other difficulties involved in the Trinity, human responsibility versus divine sovereignty, the existence of evil, the creation of the cosmos, miracles, or bodily resurrection, we will surrender to the text, even though we may be incapable of explaining it at some points. For this we are called fideists. Okay, guilty—and faithful.

While the charge of rationalism that we conservatives bring against liberal Christians and liberal critics is mostly true, it is not completely true. Liberal Christians reject out of hand most meaningful notions of creation, and accept almost all the provisions of evolutionism, claiming that God does what He does by natural processes. They reject Creation and a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 not on the grounds of exegesis but on the grounds that they do not fit the conclusions of modern science. Having been persuaded by science, they return to the text and eisegete it: they “read into” a perfectly understandable account of creation all sorts of interesting “figurative” language. Never mind that the vast bulk of the history of orthodox Christianity never saw the text that way. There are a few exceptions, of course, but they are in the clear minority. There’s nothing new in the playbook of unbelief: just recycled arguments.

I mentioned that Christian liberals are not necessarily thorough-going rationalists: they are rather, inconsistent rationalists. The dead giveaway is their view on the resurrection. While modern science completely pooh-poohs the notion of a real, bodily resurrection, liberal Christians—for a while—insist on believing it. Thus are they inconsistent with themselves: they deny the creation account because of the verdict of modern science; they believe in the resurrection against the verdict of modern science.

At this point the careful reader might think, “Okay, Cobb, what’s the diff? You conservatives are inconsistent, the libs are inconsistent—so what? At least they land correctly on the big point—the resurrection—as a matter of faith. Is this not proof of the reality of their faith?” Yes, it possibly is proof of precisely that. I certainly hope it is, for their sake. But I am concerned that it might be a demonstration, rather, of a sentimental attachment to vestigial orthodox Christianity than a genuine, vigorous faith. The reason I believe this also points out the distinction between our inconsistency and theirs: it’s the matter of the ultimate source of authority. The conservative believer takes the Bible as his source of authority: end of story. That’s why we dispute evolution, abortion, homosexuality, modern morality, etc. We do so because the text compels us to. On the other hand, for the liberal, it appears that science has become their highest source of authority. If so—and many of the signs point this way—the Christian faith of the liberal is merely a waypoint on an evolving journey to somewhere else.

You see this all over the blogs: “I used to be a fundamentalist, and then I realized it was a cult of narrow-minded, hateful, abusive people. I was liberated when I finally realized that evolution makes creation impossible, and that you don’t have to believe that silly stuff to be a Christian . . . ” Unfortunately, they do have a point. There are a lot of horrible examples of fundamentalists, such as Fred Phelps and Jack Hyles and many, many others—people who seem to believe that the Bible licenses hate, condemnation, dictatorial control, etc.

But the misuse of the Bible does not argue for its invalidity any more than the liberal misuse of 1 John 4:8 (“God is love”) argues for the invalidity of that text. Where will that former fundamentalist be in another five years, or ten? That’s the real question. I believe the truth of the matter is that many Christian liberals don’t have a settled position. They are, rather, on a trajectory of unbelief. The unbelief at the core of their being comes to slow flower: among the first things to be jettisoned is a meaningful notion of the inspiration of Scripture. Oh, they claim to believe it—they just continuously restrict its meaning until it no longer governs their exegesis and remains little more than a meaningless bullet point on their statement of faith.

Keep an eye on them. While on their trajectory of unbelief it is inevitable that they will cross a number of other markers. At some point the resurrection will be redefined (“it’s a spiritual resurrection, not a bodily resurrection”), as will the nature of God (they will return to something like a modal view of the Trinity, and possibly to a benign, Christianized pantheism). It will take years. Their sentimental attachments to the form and pageantry and mystery of worship will keep them in a church of one nature or another. But there will be neither redemptive truth nor redemptive power in their belief. John Shelby Spong is a perfect example of this trajectory of unbelief. Spong is the famous Episcopal bishop who argued that Christianity must change or die, and that we can no longer conceive of God as a truly personal being. He has jettisoned all of the major aspects of Christianity and is little more than a thorough-going humanist who has retained the word “god” in his personal lexicon.

Book one, chapter eight of Calvin’s Institutes, closes with these sentences (emphasis mine): "But it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of God. This it cannot be known to be, except by faith." Apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, the Bible remains a closed book. Amen.